Agenda of Policy Committee Meeting - Tuesday, 8 September 2020

8 September 2020

Policy Committee

Membership

Chairperson	Mayor Garry Webber
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Monique Lints
Members	Cr Grant Dally Cr Mark Dean Cr James Denyer Cr Murray Grainger Cr Anne Henry Cr Christina Humphreys Cr Kevin Marsh Cr Margaret Murray-Benge Cr John Scrimgeour Cr Don Thwaites
Quorum	6
Frequency	Six weekly

Role:

· To develop and review strategies, policies, plans and bylaws to advance the strategic direction of Council and its communities.

· To ensure an integrated approach to land development (including land for housing), land use and transportation to enable, support and shape sustainable, vibrant and safe communities.

· To ensure there is sufficient and appropriate housing supply and choice in existing and new urban areas to meet current and future needs.

Scope:

· Development and review of bylaws in accordance with legislation including determination of the nature and extent of community engagement approaches to be employed.

· Development, review and approval of strategies and plans in accordance with legislation including determination of the nature and extent of community engagement approaches to be employed.

· Subject to compliance with legislation and the Long Term Plan, to resolve all matters of strategic policy outside of the Long Term Plan process which does not require, under the Local Government Act 2002, a resolution of Council.

· Development of District Plan changes up to the point of public notification under the Resource Management Act 1991.

· Development of the Future Development Strategy and urban settlement plan.

· Consider and approve changes to service delivery arrangements arising from service delivery reviews required under the Local Government Act 2002 (provided that where a service delivery proposal requires an amendment to the Long Term Plan, it shall thereafter be progressed by the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee).

· To report to Council on financial implications of policies and recommend any changes or variations to allocated budgets.

· Listen to and receive the presentation of views by people and engage in spoken interaction with people pursuant to section 83(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to any processes Council undertakes to consult on under the special consultative procedure as required by the Local Government Act 2002 or any other Act.

· Oversee the development of strategies relating to sub-regional parks and sub-regional community facilities for the enhancement of the social and cultural wellbeing of the Western Bay of Plenty District communities, for recommendation to Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

· Develop the draft Statement of Intent for any Council Council-Controlled organisation (CCO) and review, assess and make recommendations to Council on any modifications to CCO or other entities’ accountability documents (i.e. Letter of Expectation, Statement of Intent) or governance arrangements.

· Approve Council submissions to central government, councils and other organisations, including submissions on proposed plan changes or policy statements.

· Receive and make decisions and recommendations to Council and its Committees, as appropriate, on reports, recommendations and minutes of the following:

- SmartGrowth Leadership Group

- Regional Land Transport Committee

- Any other Joint Committee, Forum or Working Group, as directed by Council.

· Receive and make decisions on, as appropriate, any matters of a policy or planning nature from the following:

- Waihi Beach, Katikati, Ōmokoroa, Te Puke and Maketu Community Boards,

- Maketu-Te Puke Ward Forum

- Kaimai Community Ward Forum

- Katikati- Waihi Beach Ward Forum

Power to Act:

· To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role and scope of the Committee subject to the limitations imposed.

Power to Recommend:

· To Council and/or any Committee as it deems appropriate.

Power to sub-delegate:

· The Committee may delegate any of its functions, duties or powers to a subcommittee, working group or other subordinate decision-making body subject to the restrictions within its delegations and provided that any such sub-delegation includes a statement of purpose and specification of task.

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

8 September 2020

9 Reports

9.1 Omokoroa Domain Playground - Final Concept Plan

File Number: A3828323

Author: Scott Parker, Reserves and Facilities Projects Assets Manager

Authoriser: Gary Allis, Deputy Chief Executive

Executive Summary

1. This report seeks adoption of the Omokoroa Domain playground final concept plan and approval of the proposed funding allocation.

2. The playground design has been extensively consulted on. The main contentious issues raised during the draft concept design public consultation phase are the removal of the historic lullaby swing and tractor. Solutions to replace the lullaby with a modern equivalent and retire the tractor have been discussed with the Omokoroa Community Board, who support the final concept design.

3. The implementation of the playground concept and associated landscape design components identified in the Omokoroa Domain Concept plan already adopted by Council, is broken down into the following components which make up the $1,045,000 cost estimate.

(a) playground equipment - $427k;

(b) playground area landscaping - $302k and

Recommendation

1. That the Omokoroa Domain Playground - Final Concept Plan report by the Reserves and Facilities Projects and Assets Manager is received

2. That the Omokoroa Domain Playground - Final Concept Plan is adopted and that the construction cost estimate of $1,045,000 (includes playground equipment, associated landscaping and forecourt arrival area) is approved as per the following table:

Project number / Description	2019/20 capital available subject to carry forward approval	2020/21 portion of approved budget
295203 / Omokoroa Domain and Facilities	$487,712	$165,288
320801 / Reserves – District Asset replacements	$392,000	$0
TOTAL	$1,045,000

3. That the Omokoroa Domain Playground - Final Concept Plan is not adopted therefore does not proceed.

4. That approval is given for the Omokoroa Domain playground old tractor to be decommissioned and return the tractor to its original owner.

Background

4. Following extensive community engagement over the previous eighteen months (refer Attachment 1 Engagement Report), a proposed final concept design for a new playground at Omokoroa Domain has been prepared and Council adoption of the plan is sought.

5. Attachment 2 “Playground Cost Estimates” provides the full breakdown of the estimated cost of $1,045,000 (which includes professional fees and contingency of $121,000). There are three main cost components:

(a) playground equipment - $427k;

(b) playground area landscaping - $302k and

6. Concern may be expressed about the high cost of this playground project when compared to all other playgrounds in the Western Bay District. However this project is not just about replacing playground equipment. Given its location, it is actually about rejuvenating the main entrance into the Domain as well as replacing the very tired old playground with a new fit for purpose, destination play space, appropriate to the needs of a growing community.

7. Omokoroa Domain is a recreation focal point for the entire Omokoroa community and visitors throughout the year and it justifies an appropriate level of investment.

8. The Omokoroa Domain Concept Plan adopted in 2018 (Attachment 5) includes several other upgrades in addition to the playground. These include:

· a new shared path along the foreshore linking the playground area with Gerald Crapp Reserve;

· upgraded overflow parking area at the northern end;

· new amenity tree plantings;

· a major upgrade and repositioning of the jetty and widening of the boat ramps.

The approved Omokoroa Domain development (project 295203) budget for the 2020/21 financial year is $253,000. Of this budget, $165,000 is proposed as part of the funding mix for the playground, leaving $88,000 towards other Omokoroa Domain Concept Plan improvements. Additional funding is proposed in the 2021-2031 LTP to complete the Domain Concept Plan implementation and upgrades.

9. The Reserves District Assets Replacements project 320801 unspent 2019/20 budget of $392,000 was committed to the Omokoroa Domain playground upgrade and some other asset renewals which were not able to be completed due to COVID-19.

The other assets affected in the Reserves District Assets Replacements project 320801 include playground equipment (at other reserve sites), pavement and Exceloo toilet refurbishments, all of which can be deferred into 2020/21 and 2021/22, Renewal programme with minimal affect on current asset performance or safety.

10. The current Domain playground has reached the end of its long life. Some items of equipment have already been decommissioned and/or removed due to their poor condition. Other items are needing regular repairs to keep them operational. Renewal of individual playground equipment has been deferred until a new fit for purpose “destination” playground design is approved and procured. This approach is in keeping with previous Council resolutions to undertake a comprehensive review of the play equipment at Omokoroa Domain.

11. The Engagement Summary report at Attachment, shows two items of equipment (the lullaby and the tractor) which have attracted community sentiment through the public consultation phase. There is concern about their proposed removal and replacement with new equipment. Interestingly, these concerns were not shared by the many local primary schools students who helped develop the draft concept plan (and are excited by the prospect of a new playground which they helped design), but by adults who have sentimental connections to the old equipment.

12. There is no question that the old lullaby does not meet current playground compliance safety standards. The lullaby, whilst thrilling, is also quite dangerous and has caused a number of nasty injuries to children over the years. Within the last 15 years, there have been two attempts by staff to replace the lullaby due to its poor condition and known safety concerns – endorsed by Industry leading playground consultants.

13. In 2012, Council agreed (Attachments 6 and 7) to accept the risk by implementing repairs, painting, resurfacing and installing some very limited modifications (seat plank-end rubber cushions) to mitigate the risk as much as possible. Unfortunately, it’s fundamental design & motion prevents serious modification or mitigation to properly address harm and its steel pipe frame/concrete block foundations are heavily corroded, which were not replaced in 2012. As there are modern alternative “lullaby’s” available that do meet the safety standards which offer just as much fun and thrill, there is no excuse for Council not to retire the old lullaby. The final “draft” concept plan, which is supported by the Omokoroa Community Board, now includes a modern lullaby.

Extract from the External independent safety audit 2011:

14. The old tractor also does not meet current safety standards and it is deteriorating rapidly. Rust is rife throughout it and opportunity for entrapment remain. A replacement tractor is not included in the Final Concept Plan but any replacement would no longer be a real tractor. So rather than dispose it, the Omokoroa Community Board support a suggested solution that the tractor be given to local community enthusiasts for them to potentially restore it and relocate it to another site. If this solution should fail, the original owner of the tractor has offered to take the tractor back as it holds sentimental value to him.

15. Staff are conscious that relocating the tractor to another reserve, does not necessarily resolve the safety and hazard issues associated with the tractor’s condition and the risk this poses to the public, therefore the decommissioning and return of the tractor to the original owner, may be an appropriate outcome from a safety risk management perspective.

16. Council’s current Recreation and Leisure Strategy includes the following goal;

· Provide safe, healthy and appropriate facilities

The old Tractor – (circa 2012)

Other playground items (circa 2012 but nothing has really changed since then)

Current playground location & layout

Significance and Engagement

17. Decisions are considered of medium significance. This is due to the thorough community engagement process undertaken. Negative resolution(s) will cause reputational issues between Council and the Omokoroa community and will not adequately address playground safety issues or community expectations for this location.

Engagement, Consultation and Communication

18. Refer Attachment 1 - Omokoroa Domain Playground - Engagement Summary

Issues and Options Assessment

19. There are only two practical options:

(a) Adopt the Playground Final Concept Plan and approve the proposed funding allocations – this is the recommended option by staff.

(b) Do not adopt the Playground Final Concept Plan. Individual items of playground equipment will be replaced with like for like items in the same location and funded from the Reserve District Assets Replacement project.

Option A

That the Omokoroa Domain Playground - Final Concept Plan is adopted and that the construction cost estimate of $1,045,000 (includes playground equipment, associated landscaping and forecourt arrival area) is approved as per the following table:

Project number / Description	2019/20 capital available subject to carry forward approval	2020/21 portion of approved budget
295203 / Omokoroa Domain and Facilities	$487,712	$165,288
320801 / Reserves – District Asset replacements	$392,000	$0
TOTAL	$1,045,000

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Advantages

Replaces tired and old worn out play equipment

Retains current year budget to implement other components of the adopted 2018 Omokoroa Domain Concept Plan

Rejuvenates the open space at this popular destination

Potential to attract visitors/tourists.

Use of reserves/public open space for events can have significant local economic benefits.

Contributes to the vibrancy of a town centre/community thereby attracting business and investment.

Provides amenity to the built environment which in turn adds value to neighbouring properties.

Provides space for physical activity, recreation and play; helps to provide for a healthy and interactive community.

A higher level of facilities and managed open space create an attractive place to visit/live and a higher level of social/cultural well-being.

Fosters a sense of civic pride.

Contributes to landscape character and visual amenity.

Substantially improved opportunities for cultural events/festivals.

Supports local identity.

Disadvantages

The new playground may increase traffic congestion around peak activity periods.

Managing community expectations for local recreation opportunities – not everyone will agree with the concept design or cost.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

Advantages

Reduced operational costs with new equipment

Disadvantages

Less project capital funding available for the current year (for other elements of the Omokoroa Domain)

Option B

That the Omokoroa Domain Playground - Final Concept Plan is not adopted therefore does not proceed.

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

Advantages

Re-prioritisation of funding opportunity

Disadvantages

Remaining play equipment will need replacing

Contrary to previous Council direction to review the play equipment at this location

Open space upgrade opportunity is lost

Contrary to community expectations given the high level of positive engagement

Option does not respond to the growing community

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

Advantages

Capital available for other priorities

Disadvantages

Council reputation is affected

Does not respond to growth

Reprioritisation of funding Public perception that Council is not adequately investing or sticking to the plan

Statutory Compliance

20. There are no specific statutory compliance issues for any of the recommendations.

Funding/Budget Implications

21. The playground project is proposed to be funded from a combination of Capital and Renewals budgets. Owning to project delays (for the lengthy community consultation and the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic) there is substantial carry over existing funding available. If approved, there is minimal impact on current year (2020/21) asset renewal commitments but some impact on the Omokoroa Domain Reserve development project, which aims to implement other elements of the Domain Concept Plan (2018). If this approach is taken, there will be $88,000 remaining for some of the other Omokoroa Domain capital upgrade elements and a proposal is submitted for the 2021-2031 LTP to complete the remainder of the Domain Concept Plan.

22. A summary of the current situation and proposed funding allocation is shown in the tables below:

Budget situation for last year and this year

Project Number / Description	2019/20 unspent	2020/21 approved budget
295203 / Omokoroa Domain and Facilities	$487,712	$253,000
320801 / Reserves – District Asset replacements	$392,000	$570,000
TOTALS	$879,712	$823,000

Proposed 2020/21 playground concept plan implementation funding allocation:

Project number / Description	2019/20 capital available subject to carry forward approval	2020/21 portion of approved budget
295203 / Omokoroa Domain and Facilities	$487,712	$165,288
320801 / Reserves – District Asset replacements	$392,000	$0
TOTAL	$1,045,000

Attachments

1. Omokoroa Domain Playground - Engagement Summary ⇩

2. Omokoroa Domain Playground - Final Design Cost Estimates ⇩

3. Omokoroa Domain Playground Concept Plan - Final 11 February 2020 ⇩

4. Omokoroa Domain Playground Concept Design Commentary (LOAM Architects) ⇩

5. Omokoroa Domain Concept Plan - Adopted 2018 ⇩

6. Report to Operational Services Committee dated 7 September 2012 from Omokoroa Community Board - Lullaby Swing ⇩

7. Operational Services Committee 1 November 2012 lullaby swing resolution ⇩

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

8 September 2020

9.2 Designated Dog Exercise Areas

File Number: A3831104

Author: Cheryl Steiner, Senior Policy Analyst - Consultant

Authoriser: Rachael Davie, Group Manager Policy Planning And Regulatory Services

Executive Summary

1. Council undertook a full review of its Dog Control Policy and Bylaw in 2015/16. One of the key topics from the review process was general support for the provision of dedicated dog exercise areas.

2. To respond to this, Council included a statement in the Dog Control Policy to develop designated dog exercise areas where there is demonstrable community support for such a facility. This report seeks direction on how this will occur.

3. Council has one designated dog exercise area at TECT Park, which opened in 2015. As well as informal community use, it has hosted several Mud Dog Run events.

4. Through the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan (LTP) pre-engagement Council received majority support for the provision of dog exercise areas, and dog registration fees was the most preferred funding option for this.

5. This report now seeks direction on the level of service for provision of dedicated dog exercise areas (where and how), the funding approach for establishment and operation of these areas, and the programme of delivery for consideration in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan process.

Recommendation

1. That the Senior Policy Analyst’s report titled “Designated dog exercise areas’ be received.

2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. That the Policy Committee response to Issue 1: Level of service for Council provision of dedicated dog exercise areas is to approve Option _______________.

4. That the Policy Committee response to Issue 2: Funding sources used for the level of service is to approve Option _______________.

5. That the Policy Committee response to Issue 3: Programme of delivery of dedicated dog exercise areas is to approve Option _______________, and to include this in the 2021-2031 LTP process.

Background

Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2016

6. Council undertook a full review of its Dog Control Policy and Bylaw in 2015/16, including comprehensive community engagement.

7. The policy sets out Council’s approach to the management of dogs in the District. Aside from the statutory requirements, Council has some discretion on aspects of managing dog control and the policy is the tool that provides clarity to Council, staff and the public.

8. The objectives of the policy are:

· To provide adequate opportunities to fulfil the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners, including off leash exercise.

· To minimise the danger, distress and nuisance (of dogs) to the community generally.

· To minimise the likelihood for conflict between dogs and the public or environment, by restricting access for dogs to public places where appropriate.

· To avoid danger from uncontrolled dogs having access to public places which are frequented by children whether or not the children are accompanied by adults.

· To minimise, to the extent that is practicable, the public fear of attack or intimidation by dogs.

· To actively promote the responsible ownership of dogs.

· To actively promote public safety and education.

9. The bylaw provides the rules framework for monitoring and enforcement, and is comprised of the main document and schedules that set out where dogs are required to be on leash or are prohibited (and any times these restrictions may apply).

10. One of the key topics from the review process (both pre-engagement and formal consultation) was the provision of designated dog exercise areas. As a result, the following statement is included in the policy:

“Council recognises that, as a result of future growth and recognition of areas of ecological sensitivity, there may be a need for designated Dog Exercise Areas in order to balance the recreational needs of dog owners and their dogs with the aims of effective dog control. Therefore, Council intends to develop designated Dog Exercise Areas in the District, where there is demonstrable community support for such a facility.”

11. Council’s operative policy and bylaw takes a permissive approach. In public places where there are no designated restrictions, dogs must be under control at all times. Where a dog is causing or is likely to cause, danger, distress or nuisance it must be kept on a leash and under the control of the owner. Dog owners must carry a leash at all times.

12. Designated public places are set out in the schedules to both the policy and the bylaw, and are classified as follows:

· Prohibited Areas – Dogs are not allowed in these areas at any time. Areas may be prohibited on a permanent or temporary (seasonal) basis. These areas are identified for one or more of the following reasons:

− Children’s playgrounds

− Areas of intense public use

− Areas of ecological sensitivity.

· Dogs on Leash Areas – Dogs are allowed on a leash at all times.

13. Council has one designated dog exercise area at TECT Park, which opened in 2015. As well as informal community use, it has hosted several Mud Dog Run events.

14. As at June 2020 there are 9652 dogs recorded on Council’s system, with 6769 owners.

Discussion to date

15. Earlier this year, elected members informally discussed the context, previous feedback, advantages/disadvantages of establishing dog exercise areas, key considerations and other Council approaches.

16. Council received a request to the Annual Plan 2020/21 from the Te Puke Community Board for establishment of a dog park in Te Puke. The request stated that there is already an established interest group, and many engaged in social media have provided positive support for such a park. Council’s response was:

“Council is currently undertaking investigations into the provision of dog parks across the District, with initial focus on the four main urban centres of Te Puke, Ōmokoroa, Katikati and Waihi Beach. This was a topic for pre-engagement alongside the Long Term Plan, and it was intended that prioritisation, specification and funding to develop any of these facilities be considered as part of the Long Term Plan.

A decision to fund this through the Annual Plan would likely be in advance of Council agreeing an overall programme for these facilities, but this could be incorporated going forward if Council chooses to include funding for a dog park in Te Puke. The estimate to fence off the site and provide appropriate gate systems, signage and obstacles is in the order of $25-30K.”

17. Through the 2021-2031 LTP pre-engagement Council received the following feedback on the provision of dog exercise areas:

Question	Summary of response
Should we be providing more fenced dog exercise areas?	Majority support for providing fenced dog exercise areas (68%)
Which of the following possible new locations would be your preference?	Omokoroa (between Links and Western Ave) the most preferred location followed by Te Puke (Lawrence Oliver Park). Note other two locations were Katikati (Hunter Reserve, Tetley Road Reserve or Haiku Reserve) and Waihi Beach (Broadlands Block).
What equipment or facilities should be provided at these parks?	The highest ranked ideas for equipment/facilities that should be provided are bins, drinking water, secure fencing, shade and dog poo bags.
How should new dog areas be funded?	Dog registration fees identified as most preferred funding source. General rates were the least preferred.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

Funding options for dedicated dog exercise areas

18. The range of options for funding the establishment of dedicated dog exercise areas include dog registration fees, general rates or a mixture of both. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are discussed in the issues and options section of this report.

19. Other Council’s funding approach to provision of dedicated dog exercise areas include:

· Waipa District Council: General parks budget funded from rates. Specific equipment, signs and fences are funded from dog registration fees.

· Marlborough District Council: Surplus funding which was specifically from dog registration fees that had been building up over time.

· Whangarei District Council: Dog registration fees and general rates.

· Hamilton City Council: General rates (note budget of $177,000 for a 1ha dog park).

20. An option identified in the pre-engagement that is also included in the issues and options, is that of installing a user pays system. This would could some type of fob activated system which would require users to register and manage payments online. An example of how this works is the Kiwi-cash system used for Kiwi-camp facilities however it is much easier to manage for a confined and secure indoor facility (such as pools) as opposed to an outdoor space. Options could range from an honesty box (estimate $1,000) through to a boom gate/turnstile type system ($10,000) with access managed through use of technology such as apps.

21. If Council wish to pursue this option this would need to be done taking into consideration the approach to provision of other facilities and spaces across the District. Council does not currently have a user pays system for boat ramps, playgrounds or sports fields (as examples). The provision of dedicated dog exercise areas would be part of a suite of wider recreational experiences that Council provides free access to meet the community’s needs.

22. The community currently have free access to the only designated dog exercise area at TECT Park.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT POLICY

23. The Local Government Act 2002 requires a formal assessment of the significance of matters and decision in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy in order to guide decision on approaches of engagement and degree of options analysis. In making this formal assessment it is acknowledged that all reports have a high degree of importance to those affected by Council decisions.

24. In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy this decision is considered to be of low significance because it has already received community support through various processes, Council already has one established dog exercise area, and the budget required is considerably lower than the financial thresholds included in the Policy.

Issues and Options Assessment

25. Issue 1: Level of service for Council provision of dedicated dog exercise areas.

Assumptions:

· By adopting a level of service, the general assumption is that this is what Council is committing to funding to enable the provision of basic dog exercise areas. Any additional equipment or requirements would be funded through community fundraising efforts.

· The level of service assumes Council will only fund four designated dog exercise areas across the District, to service the four main urban areas and surrounding catchments, phased over the Long Term Plan 2021-31 period. Council funding for any additional provision would be considered on a case by case basis and would likely be subject to demonstrable community support being shown for the site (and why this is required in addition to the nearest urban designated dog exercise area).

· The level of service and estimated costs assumes use of existing Council owned land for this purpose.

· The ability to achieve the level of service will depend on the site characteristics, as some of the higher spec items might be achievable (e.g. site that already has access to water like river or stream).

Options:

Option 1A: Basic spec

(est. $30,000)

Option 1B: Mid-range

(est. $40,000)

Option 1C: High spec

(est. $50,000)

· Fully fenced, with double entry gate

· Access to drinking water (fountain and tap)

· Some natural contouring of land

· Some trees planted to provide shade over time

· Dog poo bag dispenser

· Rubbish bin

· Basic bench seating

Basic plus:

· Some basic agility equipment

· Separate areas for large and small dogs

· Shade sail

· Picnic tables

Mid range plus:

· A wider range of agility equipment

· Terrain and tunnels

· Access to water for dog play and swimming

· Seating and shade – gazebo etc.

· Enhanced planting and landscaping

· Lighting for winter evening use

26. Option 1A captures the highest ranked ideas for required equipment/facilities from the pre-engagement process.

27. Indicative operational costs (total cost will depend on the size of park) are:

· Mowing - $242/ha each month, depending on location (D standard)

· Increased turf maintenance due to wear and tear

· Bin emptying - $1000/year

· Fence/gates and signage repairs

· Monitoring of site – reallocation of officer time for patrols

These costs are estimated at approx. $5000 per year/per site.

28. Issue 2: Funding sources used for the level of service.

Assumptions:

· By adopting a level of service, the general assumption is that this is what Council is committing to funding to enable the provision of dog exercise areas. Anything in addition to this would be funded through community fundraising efforts.

· Estimated cost of basic spec is $30,000 per dog exercise area plus operational costs ($5000 per year/per site).

Revenue and Financing Policy considerations:

· Funding targets for the dog control activity are currently set at 80% private benefit funded through dog registration fees, impounding fees and fines, and 20% public benefit funded through General Rates.

· The 2020-21 projection for dog registration fees is $629,882 (average fee recovered is $65.25 for each dog), and additional revenue budgeted is $74,200. This recovers all direct costs for the service and the remainder of costs, specifically overheads, allocated to the activity are funded from rates.

· Based on the current revenue there is insufficient revenue from dog registration and associated fees to fund the costs of the dog parks from existing budget savings/allocation. The costs of the dog parks instead require a direct increase in dog registration fees if this option is the preferred method of funding dog exercise areas.

Options:

Option	Approach	Advantages	Disadvantages
2A – 100% Dog registration fees	Specify as a set amount per dog based on cost of development and operation. Approx. $3 increase each year^{^[1]}. Or Specify as a percentage of the fee based on cost of development and operation.	No impact on general rates to establish areas. Provides a form of user pays (although not all dog owners will necessarily use the parks) Responds to pre-engagement feedback where majority supported use of fees for this purpose.	Impact on dog owners of an increase to dog registration fees. No guarantee that all dog owners will use dog parks. Need to understand implications on Revenue and Financing Policy funding targets for the dog control activity (80% private benefits and 20% public benefit).
2B – 100% General rates	Include capex and OPEX as part of general rates calculation.	Recognises provision of these areas as a part of the wider recreational experience provided by Council on reserves, and potential community benefits (learning, behaviours, reduce impact on other reserves, socialisation etc). No direct impact on dog owners through dog registration fee increases.	Impact on general rates. Least preferred option from pre-engagement.
2C – Mix of above (80:20) Or Council could decide on a different ratio.	As above	Provides a form of user pays (although not all dog owners will necessarily use the parks) and recognises potential benefits to the wider community (learning, behaviours, potential to reduce impact on other reserves, socialisation etc). Aligns with current funding approach for the dog control activity of dog registration fees (80%) and general rates (20%).	Impact on general rates (albeit minimal). Impact on dog owners of an increase to dog registration fees. No guarantee that all dog owners will use dog parks.
2D – User pays system	Set up a user pays system and administer. Assume 100% recover of set up, operations and administration costs.	Recognises a direct benefit to those that use the park and charges accordingly.	Inconsistent with Council’s approach for other park facilities such as boat ramps, playgrounds, sports fields etc where there are no user pays systems in place. Doesn’t recognise wide public benefit from this provision (learning, behaviours, potential to reduce impact on other reserves, socialisation etc) Any shortfall through users fees for the site would have to be recovered from other funding sources e.g. rates. System could be subject to exploitation e.g. one person letting in numerous dogs for free

29. Issue 3: Programme of delivery

Assumptions:

· The programme will be included in the draft 2021-2031 LTP where further feedback may be received on the approach in future LTP community engagement phases, which may impact on the final programme of delivery.

· Sites represent what was consulted on through the LTP pre-engagement. The proposed order reflects that there is proactive community group ready to proceed in Te Puke, and the remaining order reflects pre engagement outcomes and could be adjusted to respond to any change in priority through annual plan processes.

· If a community wish to proceed with development of a dog exercise area at a faster pace than Council’s agreed programme of delivery, this can be considered through the annual plan or long term plan process.

· There may be other sites that are identified that could be considered in the future (for example Conway Rd Reserve identifies the potential for this in the recently adopted concept plan) or the process of site-specific engagement may result in consideration of other sites.

· Each site requires engagement with park users and adjacent landowners prior to development with a view to mitigating any major concerns identified. A concept plan will be developed to illustrate what the area will look like which will assist with the engagement process. This will need to be developed, taking into consideration any existing Reserve Management Plan or concept plan direction for the site.

· Operational budgets will include a minimal increase to reflect the agreed programme of delivery.

Options:

Option	Programme	Advantages	Disadvantages
3A – Annual programme of delivery	2021/22: Te Puke $30k 2022/23: Ōmokoroa $30k 2023/24: Katikati $30k 2024/25: Waihi Beach $30k	Recognises Te Puke has support and a proactive community group. Provides level of service within a four-year timeframe enabling access to these areas across the district.	Majority of financial impact in Years 1 – 3 of LTP.
3B – Biennial programme of delivery (one every two years)	2021/22: Te Puke $30k 2023/24: Ōmokoroa $30k 2025/26: Katikati $30k 2027/28: Waihi Beach $30k	Recognises Te Puke has support and a proactive community group. Spreads out additional funding requirements and impact on staff work programme.	Slower progress on delivery and level of access provided across the district.
3C – One every three year (LTP term)	2021/22: Te Puke $30k 2024/25: Ōmokoroa $30k 2027/28: Katikati $30k 2030/31: Waihi Beach $30k	Recognises Te Puke has support and a proactive community group. Spreads out additional funding requirements and impact on staff work programme. Aligns with reserve management plan review programme.	Much slower progress on delivery and level of access provided across the district.

Engagement, Consultation and Communication

30. Council will carry out community engagement as part of the planning and delivery for each dedicated dog exercise area. This will be with tangata whenua, adjacent landowners and the wider community.

Statutory Compliance

31. Site specific community engagement will be carried out in accordance with s82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Principles of consultation).

32. Reserve Management Plan review processes carried out under the Reserves Act 1977 can be used to engage with the community on the provision of dedicated dog exercise areas. Reserves planning and policy development are the responsibilities of the Policy Committee, which has delegated authority to hear submissions to a draft reserves management plan/concept plans and adopt or not adopt accordingly.

33. Implementation funding is proposed to be considered through the LTP 2021-31 process.

Funding/Budget Implications

Budget Funding Information

Relevant Detail

2031-2031 LTP

Direction provided on issues and options will determine budget implications.

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

8 September 2020

9.3 Community Halls Operational Policy Adoption

File Number: A3833867

Author: Jodie Rickard, Senior Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Rachael Davie, Group Manager Policy Planning And Regulatory Services

Executive Summary

1. The purpose of this report is to present the reviewed Community Halls Operational Policy for adoption by the Policy Committee.

Recommendation

1. That the report of the Senior Policy Analyst dated 8 September 2020 and titled Community Halls Operational Policy Adoption be received.

2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. That the Policy Committee adopts the Community Halls Operational Policy, as set out in Attachment 1 to this report.

Background

2. Council has an existing Halls Policy. The Policy has been in place since 2007 and was last reviewed in 2009. It confirms that Council is in the business of community halls, and these are managed through a partnership with local hall committees.

3. In 2019 Council commenced a review of the Halls Policy. The review was in response to some identified issues and because of the 10-year time period since the policy had last been reviewed. Through the review, the Policy Committee agreed the existing Policy is largely fit for purpose, however some issues were identified. These were:

· Condition assessments require updating, factoring in new building requirements.

· A process is needed for major capital redevelopments, so Council is involved early.

· Some major capital redevelopments are related to new compliance requirements, such as earthquake strengthening and asbestos management. These can be complex and require expert project management.

· A process is needed for what happens when a hall committee is no longer operational.

4. A reviewed Halls Policy was prepared, and feedback was sought from Hall Committees.

5. Council also included questions about halls in its Phase 1 community engagement campaign for the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021-2031 (“Hello Future District.”).

6. The feedback from the community and the hall committees is set out in the Engagement, Consultation and Communication Section of this report.

Significance and Engagement

7. The Local Government Act 2002 requires a formal assessment of the significance of matters and decision in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy in order to guide decision on approaches of engagement and degree of options analysis. In making this formal assessment it is acknowledged that all reports have a high degree of importance to those affected by Council decisions.

8. In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy this decision is considered to be of low significance because it relates to an operational policy that feedback has been received on by the most affected parties. The policy also requires further engagement on certain proposals providing opportunity for communities to have their say on decisions that may affect them.

Engagement, Consultation and Communication

9. Engagement through Phase One LTP 2021-2031: Hello Future District

· Council asked the community questions about community halls through Phase One engagement for the LTP 2021-31. The purpose of these questions was to get some understanding of the use of the halls in the district, and ratepayers views on contributing to the upkeep of halls through targeted rates.

· 572 responses were received. Of those, 226 responded that they did not use a hall (39%), with the remaining 346 (61%) identifying the hall they used most often. 323 respondents (55%) supported all ratepayers contributing to community halls.

· 72 specific comments were received. 26 of these were positive comments. 17 negative comments were received, mostly stating that people shouldn’t have to pay for something they don’t use.

· Overall there was a higher level of support for having community halls and contributing to the upkeep of them, than opposed to it.

10. Engagement with Hall Committees

· Two sessions were held with hall committees on Tuesday 30^th June in Council chambers, and on Wednesday 1^st July online via Zoom.

· In total, 12 hall committees were represented at these sessions. Overall, there were no issues with the approach set out in the reviewed draft Policy. Some operational questions were asked which staff have provided responses to. Those queries were:

- Responsibility for carpark areas – both for maintenance / upgrades and for public liability for events that use the carpark area such as markets.

- Security – preventing vandalism, providing CCTV cameras and viewing the footage. What are the rules around this?

- Building Warrants of Fitness - can be a lot of work for hall committees. Is there a better way to do this?

- Insurance – making sure public liability covers all hall users.

Interested/Affected Parties	Completed Engagement
Hall Committees	Specific sessions held on 30 June and 1 July 2020.
General Public	General questions about community halls included in Phase 1 LTP 2021-2031 engagement (“Hello Future District”) with 572 responses received.

Issues and Options Assessment

11. The table below sets out the options for the Policy Committee to consider. These options are:

· adopt the operational policy as attached to this report (see Attachment 1), subject to any identified amendments the committee makes, or

· Adopt the policy as a draft for further engagement.

Option A

Adopt the Community Halls Operational Policy (as set out in Attachment 1 to this report)

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

ADVANTAGES

· Gives clarity to hall committees and the wider community on processes around the use of targeted rates for the upkeep of halls.

· Enables elected members and hall committees to use the policy to guide decision making through the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

DISADVANTAGES

· Council is in the process of completing condition assessments on each hall, to inform hall committee’s 10-year work programmes. This work will enable Council to include projections for targeted rates within the LTP 2021-2031. There is a risk that the condition assessments will identify needs for significant capital investment, that the Policy does not have sufficient flexibility to provide for. This is mitigated by requirements in the draft policy for engagement if the targeted rate exceeds $50 per rateable property in any one year, however the Committee may want to wait until the condition assessments are completed before adopting the Policy.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

In terms of the Policy implementation, there may be some costs associated with preparing a best practice guide for hall committees. These costs are likely to be minimal (e.g. printing) with the work done in-house.

The costs to upkeep each hall will be determined through the condition assessments and hall 10-year work programmes.

Option B

Adopt the Community Halls Operational Policy as a draft Policy, for further engagement

Assessment of advantages and disadvantages including impact on each of the four well-beings

· Economic

· Social

· Cultural

· Environmental

ADVANTAGES

· Provides a further opportunity for feedback from the hall committees.

DISADVANTAGES

· Delaying adopting the policy means Council may have less clarity when making decisions about community halls for the draft LTP.

· It is unlikely that a further opportunity for feedback from hall committees would lead to much change, and adds another step into the process that may not add more value.

Costs (including present and future costs, direct, indirect and contingent costs).

The costs for this option are the same as for Option A, as the Policy and condition assessments will still need to be completed and implemented.

The costs to upkeep each hall will be determined through the condition assessments and hall 10-year work programmes.

Statutory Compliance

12. This report is consistent with requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

Funding/Budget Implications

13. As highlighted under the options, there are financial implications associated with contributing funding to community halls. These costs will be known once the condition assessments and 10-year work programmes for each hall are complete.

14. It is worth noting that the costs exist whether or not the Policy Committee adopts the reviewed Community Halls Operational Policy, as there is an existing policy, activity plan and funding policy in place.

NEXT STEPS

15. Once the Community Halls Operational Policy is adopted, staff will update hall committees via a further group session in October. Tasks set out for implementation in the Policy will be included in work programmes.

Attachments

1. Draft Community Halls Operational Policy September 2020 ⇩

[1] Based on $30k for development and 10,000 dogs. Operational costs are minimal so will see slight increase over time.